Am 5. Mai 2017 16:05:09 MESZ schrieb Maxim Bourmistrov <m...@alumni.chalmers.se>: > >> 5 maj 2017 kl. 15:55 skrev Maxim Bourmistrov ><m...@alumni.chalmers.se>: >> >> >>> 5 maj 2017 kl. 14:41 skrev Hiltjo Posthuma <hil...@codemadness.org>: >>> >>> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 12:30:56PM +0200, Maxim Bourmistrov wrote: >>>> […] >>>> Changing ’prefork’ from 15 to 3 makes it work. >>>> >>>> Is this a bug? >>>> >>>> Br >>> >>> Hey, >>> >>> This is a random guess since you haven't posted the whole config, >>> but I think >>> it has bitten me too sometime: >>> >>> Do you have the global options such as prefork defined before your >>> relays and routes or not? >>> >>> The order of the global options matter. If the global options are >>> set after >>> the table they are not initialized on the tables and can actually >>> crash relayd. >>> This is because the health checking uses a different prefork value >and checks >>> the "wrong" amount. >>> >>> I'm not sure, but I think it is not a bug: it is documented in >>> relayd.conf(5). >>> >>> Thinking about it: would it be acceptable if `relayd -n` shows a >>> warning if >>> global options are defined in the wrong order? I can write the patch >>> for it >>> if it makes sense. >>> >>> I hope this helps you in some way, >>> >>> -- >>> Kind regards, >>> Hiltjo >> >> The whole config is like this: >> >> […] >> >> Note, config layout exactly the same which runs already on >6.0-stable. >> >> My original question is why I can’t fork more than 3 procs any more >> and why relayd starts then prefork > 3 >> and does not do a health check. >> >> Br > >Hm, I tried this out - re-ordering the layout of the config. >You are, indeed, correct here. > >Strange that this runs on 6.0. > >Case closed. >Sorry for the noise. > >Br
I would still say it's worth the patch Hiltjo offered to write. Or At least have the warning printed when testing the config with `-v -n`. Regards, Florian
